Conclusions and recommendations

Management of the UK support for bio-energy

• Substantial benefits would flow from a co-ordinated ongoing, integrated bio-energy strategy involving all government departments and executive agencies concerned with the sector.
• This should be facilitated by the Department of Energy and Climate Change which should be recognised as the department responsible for leading the development and implementation of the strategy.
• There should be clear identification of roles for respective government departments in the UK bio-energy value chain and increased specialist bio-energy capacity within each department.

Focus of UK research on bio-energy technologies

• There should be continued support for research in a number of existing areas that will underpin the successful development and deployment of bio-energy, such as plant science, applied agronomy and conversion technologies.
• Exploratory work in a number of new areas, should be subject to ongoing review, including:
  • use of algae within a wider research remit of which a component should be for energy;
  • bio-energy with CO2 capture and storage;
  • the potential for liquid “drop-in” bio-fuels that could be substituted for conventional fuels; and
  • investigation of the opportunities for development of large scale bio-refineries.

Support for development and deployment of bio-energy

• Better global information on land use, and understanding of how to optimise the use of available land to produce food, fibre and energy in a sustainable and cost-effective manner.
• More work should be done with other countries through collaborative research programmes, which would allow the UK to benefit from advances elsewhere.
• The development of extension services for the education of farmers on sustainable farming practices.
• Re-consider EU GMO policy with the need for public engagement.

Support along whole of the UK bio-energy supply chain to minimise financial risk (from farmer to end-user).

Follow-up activities

The ERP sought to follow up on the key recommendation that ‘There is an urgent need for of strategic oversight, policy alignment and coherence of the components involved in the UK bioenergy sector.  Without this the UK risks missing the opportunity to optimise the contribution of bioenergy in the energy system for pathways to 2050.’

To this end, the ERP sponsor undertook meetings with Bernie Bulkin (ORED) and David MacKay (CSA to DECC) to further this and other recommendations in the ERP review, and Steering Group members also met with the Climate Change Committee (CCC).  A discussion paper was also produced in response to the CCC Bio-energy Review released in December 2011.

Key outcome from engagement activity was the development of the cross-departmental working group on bioenergy.

Working Group

Project Sponsor – Dr Graeme Sweeney, Executive Vice President CO2, Shell International

Dr Rebecca Heaton – Shell International

Dr David Penfold – The Carbon Trust

Marcus Stewart – National Grid

Dr Robert Sorrell – BP

Charles Carey – Scottish and Southern Energy

Dr Susan Weatherstone – E.ON

Duncan Eggar – BBSRC

Thanks to the contributions of Professor Robert Lee (Shell International) and Steven Vallender (National Grid)

Conclusions

Our key conclusions are:

• Energy storage can help manage the large-scale deployment of intermittent generation and the electrification of space heating.
  The role for energy storage is poorly described in many pathways to a low-carbon economy. It needs detailed analysis to identify the potential economic and environmental benefits.
• New energy storage technologies are unlikely to be deployed on a large scale under current market and regulatory conditions. Both technology cost reductions, and a market framework which recognises the benefits of energy storage, are required.
• Demonstration of energy storage technologies needs to be scaled-up and public sector support for innovation in these technologies should be better coordinated.
• Energy storage is an enabling technology; its potential role will be defined by developments across the energy system. A better understanding of both the energy system and policy direction is required urgently to inform investment decisions.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are:

1. Government should set out its long-term policy direction for energy in the UK to help define the potential role for storage, and the innovation required to meet that role.
2. Funders of energy innovation must set out a strategy for the analysis and innovation of energy storage technologies, coordinating their support and integrating the analysis of potential benefits with technology innovation.
3. Further analysis of the potential role of storage in the UK’s energy system should be funded. Whole system and subsystem modelling, incorporating the full range of energy storage options across time and energy scales, is needed.
4. The Technology Strategy Board should consider bringing forward a programme for energy storage technologies, where there is an opportunity for UK businesses and a potential market need. Other bodies which can support large scale demonstration activities, such as Ofgem and DECC, should target energy storage as a priority.
5. Electricity Market Reform and regulatory approaches must recognise the potential benefits of increased energy storage explicitly.
6. The energy storage stakeholder community, covering all elements of research, development, demonstration and deployment, should establish a Strategic Roadmap for Energy Storage in the UK to introduce a coherent approach across the sector.

This report has been prepared by the ERP Analysis Team, led by Jonathan Radcliffe, with input from ERP members and their organisations. The Steering Group was chaired by John Miles (Arup), with Ron Loveland (Welsh Assembly Government), Alex Hart (Ceres Power), Charles Carey (SSE), David Anelli (E.ON), Gary Staunton (Carbon Trust), Gert Jan Kramer (Shell), John Loughhead (UKERC), Richard Ploszek (RAEng), Bob Sorrell (BP), Steven Stocks (Scottish Enterprise), and Tim Bradley (National Grid).

The views are not the official point of view of any of these organisations or individuals and do not constitute government policy.

.